AK-12 Rifle Discussion

Izhmash has officially unveiled the final production model of the AK-12 Assault Rifle. According to Max Popenker there will be two models, a Light model (5.45x39mm, 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm) that accepts all magazines that work with existing AK rifles, as well as a new 60 round quad stack magazine, and a Heavy (7.62x51mm) model that will use a new magazine.

The thing is that the cocking handle likely rotates through 180 degrees so it can be on the left side or the right side.

This means the bolt carrier... to which the cocking handle is attached has been redesigned.

It would not take that much effort to further change it to be more like the Dragunov with a separate and lighter piston rod that only moves a cm or so to push the bolt carrier and bolt back to start the recoiling and reloading process without having a great big mass moving back and forth that led to the necessity of a balance recoil mechanism in the first place.

That might explain the bumps on the top of the gas tube, or they could be rail mounts to mount something there.

Unless it is a fundamentally new system it is not a balanced recoil mechanism as the place where the gas is tapped is too far forward.

It also seems longer and with more tacticrap on it it will be more front heavy which should reduce muzzle climb during automatic fire anyway.

They have clearly gone for least complicated changes, which will increase its chance of adoption I suppose.

I would have liked to have seen it based on the AK-107... and the new versions of the AK-107 suggest they are still experimenting with it...

So a light model AK-12 can fire any of these bullets 5.45x39mm, 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm using the same single gun , no need to change the gun to fire different caliber bullet ?

So it means in a war of a 5.45x39 is not available and they find a enemy 5.56x45mm round in abundance they can just use that ?

No, I don't think so... otherwise they would have mentioned the ability of multi calibre use.

It will likely come in the different calibres.

Though looking at the thickness of the barrel in front of the front stock where it gets really thick... is the barrel removable?

The problem is that will you carry extra barrels in combat plus extra magazines for the different ammo types in case you run out of ammo.... or will you just carry more ammo?

I think the latter.

The multi calibre thing would be good for spec ops so they can use one gun for a variety of different roles, but for the soldier in the field I think more ammo would be better than bolts and mags and barrels for different calibres.

That might have been the whole rifle recoiling, or an optical illusion.

Note when it is frozen the front sight does not get closer to the furniture during firing.

A balanced recoil mechanism is really only useful when firing in bursts, because when firing single shots the bullet is on its way and is not influenced by the motion of the action.

The improved stock, plus the shaped pistol grip, and the option of a front pistol grip should mean the operator has a solid grip on the weapon.

Add the effective muzzle brake, and the low recoil of the cartridge and I think they can probably get away with not having a balanced recoil mechanism and still have reasonable shooting characteristics.

Remember this isn't counterstrike, very few other weapons can stay on target in full auto either.

I rather suspect that the future small arms family of Russia will be bullpup based with a modular design that allows choice of barrel length and calibre and a rear portion that perhaps allows a choice of ammo feed.

The AKs reliability comes from the weight ratio between the bolt carrier and the bolt. The bolt carrier, includes the piston rod and is at least 5-6 times heavier than the bolt. This means that as it recoils it has plenty of energy/momentum to unlock and open the bolt.

It is this heavy mass slapping back and forth that actually generates the recoil, and the purpose of the balanced recoil mechanism is to retain that weight imbalance... which also retains reliability, but to counter its effect on the shooter.

The question is, what sort of ammo will the new family of weapons use... conventional or more exotic?

If it is conventional then a good bolt to bolt carrier weight ratio will give it reliability at the expense of mass and recoil. A balance recoil mechanism will deal with the recoil effects, but it doesn't need to greatly increase weight or complication or expense...

They could certainly apply all the upgrades they have made to the AK-12 to the AK-107 and test them side by side.

Notice above the grenade launcher that the rail underneath the front stock is visible...

That fan art a while back showed two different underbarrel stock configurations, one with rails for normal use and a flat bottomed one for use with the grenade launcher.

This didn't really make sense to me as the whole idea of the grenade launcher is that it is easy to clip on and off like a bayonet.

Having to remove the lower front stock and replace it with a smooth model just so you can fit the grenade launcher didn't seem sensible to me, and this photo clearly shows there is no alternative smooth stock for when grenade launchers are fitted.

I have been looking around the place and according to what I have read that MTs-558 is a straight pull bolt action weapon designed for civilian use.

Note like the VSSK it is not a semi auto weapon, It is a single shot manually loaded weapon... a bit like an AK with the gas tube and pistol removed, so you fire and rack back the cocking handle to load a new round.

Means it is quiet I guess as there is no mechanism reloading all the time, but would reduce the rate of fire.

OK, this is what the AK-12 would look like with the old 90 round SAW drum fitted...

As you can see it is not as long as a standard 30 round magazine yet holds 90 rounds.

From the information on the line drawing posted previously here by Austin it seems there is a 95 round drum magazine which might be related to this.

Of course drums are not the same as mags, they often have a spring that needs to be unwound to load the drum and wound up to use the ammo in the drum and of course there are factors like ammo rattling and making noise, and the fact that they are generally quite expensive to make.

In practise the Russian military seems to have preferred long mags for their LMG for simplicity and cost.

The RPK has a 40 round mag and the RPK-74 as a 45 round mag.

Not the same as the 200 round box for the FN Minimi, but then all soldiers in a Russian unit have full auto capable rifles so it really isn't a problem of firepower.

The introduction of the PKP (Pecheneg) means a 100 round box holding a 100 round belt of ammo giving not only much better firepower but much better reach and distance hitting power... out to 1.5km or so.

The photo above shows the AK-200 and says it has a balanced recoil mechanism.

The AK-12 is something different developed by the Izhmash factory and doesn't have a balanced recoil mechanism.

From the photos above there is an AK-100 series two with rails as an obvious upgrade.

We have seen, thanks to TheArmenian, photos of an AK-107 with rails and a peep rear iron sight, so they are still working on that too.

These four weapons are being worked on for Kalashnikov, and even if not accepted by the Russian military could be aimed at the export market... and personally I think the AK-12 in particular will be successful.

We also have the ADS which has been accepted by the VDV (they mentioned getting lots of new kit including an underwater rifle), and presumably the Navy will buy the ADS as well. I suspect they will adopt the ADS as a standard assault rifle and therefore replace the AK.

The Russian Army has said it will no longer buy AK-74s, but in the various articles that mentioned that fact also mentioned they would still buy AK-100 series weapons, which they see as improved AK-74s.

I suspect the AK-12 and AK-200 will be lapped up by special forces and paramilitary organisations like the MVD, FSB, etc etc.

I think like the VSSK that the ASh-12 is a very specialised weapon for FSB and MVD and special forces use, while the MTs-558 is likely for civilian users only. Obviously the export potential of the weapon is seriously limited in 12.7 x 55mm calibre because of the lack of available ammo, but in 300LM and 338LM it might be interesting.

In many ways it is a bit like a smaller 600 Nitro express round or other similar elephant gun calibre.

The other remaining issue of course is with the AK-12. Is the heavy model only 7.62 x 51mm calibre, or is there that secret calibre version of it as I suggested in 6 x 49mm?

With newly developed high energy powders for the underwater 5.45mm ammo it is certainly possible they might have revised the design again, to either make the round smaller, or to use heavier bullets at similar high velocities.

Not that I have something against the 7.62 x 54mm round, but a new round to replace it that was easier to design weapons for... that stacked better in a magazine, or perhaps even had a plastic or caseless design...

Or perhaps the AK-12 is just for export... the 6.8 Grendel version might sell well along with the 7.62 x 51mm version.

Of course with Russian entering the WTO a lot of the import bans on Russian weapons might become illegal...

Also just looking at the image above of the AK-200, apart from added rails and balanced recoil mechanism it hard to find any other major changes, though the second model seems to have a length adjustable folding stock, I would say the AK-12 is rather further developed than the AK-200 is.

I think perhaps they have gone with the AK-12s solutions as being more effective at dealing with the perceived problems with the AK-74.

If it were up to me personally, I would go for the AK-12, and perhaps apply the AK-12s upgrades/modifications to an AK-107 balanced recoil rifle and make about 100 of each and give them to the troops to field test on exercise and listen to what they have to say about them.

Afterall at the end of the day whether I think they are neat, or cool or effective from an engineering perspective is irrelevant... are the benefits of the extra complication of a balanced recoil mechanism worth the extra cost and complications in manufacture?

BTW this is a picture I have doctored to depict an AK-12 based on the AK-107 and fitted with a '95' round drum:

I think perhaps they have decided that the extra cost and complication is not worth the improvement in performance.

At the end of the day an AK-12 based on the AK-107 balanced recoil mechanism, with a removable barrel and spare bolt and magazine setup designed so that while you can use different length barrels you can't mix up calibre components, so for instance a 5.45mm bolt will only fit with a 5.45mm barrel and vice versa, though there are SMG length barrels (ie AKS-74U length) carbine length (ie AK-105), rifle length (AK-74), and LMG length (RPK-74) and designated marksman/sniper rifle length barrels (SVD) in each small calibre for the light AK-12, and perhaps carbine, rifle, LMG, and designated marksman/sniper rifle length for the large AK-12 would be flexible and make smaller purchases of weapons cheaper. If the barrel is worn out... buy another barrel. Bolt needs replacing then buy a bolt etc etc.

The front furniture could be part of the barrel/gas system, so you wont have problems where the LMG furniture extends past the SMGs barrel.

The us needs to adopt an ak platform! From personal experience the m16 platform sucks even when kept clean and people seem to think that just because you put a piston conversion in it that is as reliable as the ak and it isn't. The tensions are too tight and fail with a bit a dust. I'm sorry if I've gone off topic but I had to get that off my chest because everyone over here is brainwashed! However you can add one point for the new ak it looks great and i'm sure it will perform great as well.

There is no intrinsic reason for the AK to be less accurate than an AR.

Half of the problem is that expectations are totally unrealistic and that any edge an AR might have over an AK in practical terms is imaginary.

From the stats I have seen regarding the current ongoing conflict in Afghanistan all the claims of accuracy to 800m or 600m for the SA80 and M16 simply don't stack up in the real world.

In fact stats show the bullets are simply not lethal beyond 200m for the short barrel weapons like the M4 and FN Minimi, and 300m for the full length barrel rifles.

Spending time and money to make them accurate to 600m is pointless when the standard ammo is not effective at that range anyway.

As far as the Soviets and Russians are concerned assault rifle cartridges are for 200-300m only and for distances greater than that there are RPK-74, SVD, and PKM.

Of course in most environments that is fine, it is in mountain country like Afghanistan or the Caucasus that allow you to see targets much further away and a general lack of cover that means longer shots are possible.

The kill mechanism of the 5.56mm NATO is to tumble and fragment, but velocity is needed to achieve fragmentation and means all rifles using that calibre are limited by their barrel length.

The kill mechanism of the 5.45mm Soviet is to tumble on impact, and it is designed to do this at any velocity so it has no range limitations.

Of course like the 5.56mm it depends on where you hit and a bit of luck... a bullet through the arm with either round will not be lethal unless it hits a main artery. On impact the 5.45mm tends to turn 90 degrees and travel at an odd angle, which could take it through the major organs or it might take it out of the body and do little actual damage.

In both cases the wound can be bad or trivial depending on the exact situation.

The 5.45mm doesn't have any range limitations and will tumble at 800m and at 50m.

I have read stats that state the range at which US troops are 99.9% likely to kill at target with their M16 is something like 45m. Hit probability dramatically goes down beyond that.

I am just glad they haven't tried to turn the AK into an AR.

Peep sights and ambidextrous controls preceeded the AR by decades, and being able to shift the cocking handle from left to right is not really an option for ARs either.

Yes, I know the cocking piece on an M16 is where it is, and I think it is a pain because they designed the rifle so you can do all sorts of things with your free hand while looking down the sights, but to cock the weapon you have to move your eye from the sight line.

Another thing I personally prefer about the ak over the ar is the way the magazine seeds into the weapon. During training in the west you get pretty good at changing mags and you can do it very quickly but in a real world environment people fumble around with the magazine trying to insert it. Especially ones who are not assigned to combat units but with the ak it's much easier to just hook and pull and also the placement of the magazine release because you can use your full mag to flip out the empty one never having to move your firing hand. The ak is just more user friendly and i think that it was designed that way on purpose. However our government tells our people that we have the best weapons that you can buy.

However our government tells our people that we have the best weapons that you can buy.

Don't they all...

It is funny that most well educated and worldly people in the west understand that their governments lie to them, but they don't get the concept that their governments might also therefore be wrong about certain things.

I know a lot of people who just get their information from the History Channel and Discovery and think all the best things are American.

At the end of the day it doesn't actually matter what anyone believes, but it does make it hard to have a rational conversation with some people.

Here in NZ we have fairly strict gun laws which require me to only have a 7 round magazine in my AK and I can say it is a total pain. When you remove a 30 round magazine you grab the mag with your palm and fingers and use your thumb to activate the mag release and rock the mag forward and down. With a 7 round mag there is nothing to grab because it is so short.

It is not an AK only problem as I have the same problem with my L1A1 SLR.

Kind of off topic but it's the same as the abrams and the T-90. the T-90 is superior. It's lighter, faster, not only does it fire conventional tank rounds but it also fires a missile. However according the the history channel the abrams is the best. they have never faced each other and of course the abrams beat iraqs T-72 in the first gulf war they were new updated abrams fighting against 20 year old tanks! It's amazing what people will believe. Sorry I get off topic a lot i'll try to contain myself for future posts! It's just nice to see people who take the facts and personal experience into account rather than what they see on tv and hear from their governments. My uncle asked me tonight if I went back to afghanistan and had a choice would i take an M-4 back and I told him I would rather take an Ak that had been buried in someones back yard for a few years. Case in point, Nawa district Afghanistan after we got back from a patrol one night one of our guys went to clear his weapon and the extractor would not grab the cartridge we racked it several times to no avail he ended up ramming a cleaning rod down the barrel to get the round out and come to find out there wasn't even that much sand on the bolt face, he's damn lucky nothing happened that night.

The T-90 is a good tank, and in its T-90AM version a very good tank, but the Abrams is a very good tank too.

I personally have a hard time understanding people who say this or that tank is the best... I am sure a soldier who operated a particular tank and that tank saved their life might think that is the best tank.

Every tank has good and bad features and there are situations where those good and bad features are exposed.

For instance in a T-90 early model there is loose ammo carried as standard in the crew compartment, so a penetration of the hull can cause a devastating explosion that puts the whole crew at risk.

The obvious solution is to just carry ammo in the armoured autoloader. The best solution, I think, was applied in the Burlak upgrade where there is an under floor armoured autoloader with 22 rounds of ammo protected and separated from the crew compartment and another autoloader in the turret bustle with a further 31 rounds of ready to use ammo separated from the crew, but this design was rejected by the Russian Army because the rounds in the bustle were too exposed to enemy fire. The first solution is the T-90AM, and the final solution is the Armata tank with all the main gun ammo below the turret ring in an unmanned turret.

In the Abrams all the ammo is in the turret bustle.

What i am trying to say is different problems have a range of solutions and each solution has its good points and bad points. The Abrams solution to protecting the crew from penetrating hits setting off ammo it to put the ammo in the turret bustle. The Russian Army didn't approve of such a solution as they feel it is too exposed to enemy fire.

Who is to say who is right. The point is that the enemy will quickly work out where the ammo is stored and try to hit it. Statistics seem to show tanks tend to get hit in their turrets... which is why the front of a turret is usually the most heavily armoured part of a tank.

Rate of fire is tricky to call because the AR is not full auto capable, and I suspect the lower rate of fire of the AK allows it to be kept on target better.

Calibre is not as important as standard bullet type, which makes the 5.45mm the superior round because for the standard rounds the 5.45mm round is lethal at any range while the standard 5.56mm round has range limitations to its lethality. Further the fact that the latest 5.56mm round has a steel nose and a lead tail to recreate the tumble on impact effect of the 5.45mm round you would have to say even NATO thinks the 5.45mm was superior.

With regard to magazines the AK-12 is the clear winner. Both larger capacity and more rugged and durable designs.

In terms of weight the AK-12 appears to be the winner again. With a 60 round mag it will likely become heavier than an AR, but not if the AR has two 30 round mags taped together too.

Finally range... both are just silly and totally unrealistic for such small projectiles.

With claims of being able to hit targets at 600m from the AR camp I would expect the same from the AK-12, but the difference is that barrel length and velocity mean that the AR is a 300m weapon tops, and the AK-12 will likely be a 400-500m range weapon because its ammo will tumble on impact even at these distances and therefore retain a measure of lethality that the 5.56mm lacks.

Reacting to the development of our new KB, such as a rifle, a bullet punched his armored personnel carriers, and the machine underwater cartridges, the task of updating stockpiles of small arms on a modernized variants has become one of the most important tasks of the Ministry of Defense. Despite its reputation around the world, the Kalashnikov is also criticized analysts. Party "accusations" rests on the fact that this model has long been outdated and unable to effectively carry out combat missions. Ministry of Defence has made a declaration to terminate the purchase of this type of weapon, explaining that the warehouses, and so crowded, "Kalash". "Izhmash" promptly responded to this criticism, began to develop a new type of weapon before the start of the competition to develop a new generation of machines. At the forefront of the designers put the dignity of the AK-12 - an opportunity to use it with one hand, to which the Defense Ministry responded suspicion that the new model will copy all the shortcomings of the AK-47, as it is created on its basis.

The Russian "defense industry", represented by its experts, said that the weapons they produce, not inferior to foreign counterparts, as well as their superior, which was presented last week at Klimovsk. Meeting of the Scientific-Technical Council of the Military-Industrial Commission under the Russian government on the basis of a demonstration set of Precision Engineering Research Institute was able to see the development of small arms.

Viktor Litovkin, a columnist for "Independent Military Review", highlighted as the most interesting and promising model of two-media machine DT (working on land and under water) of 12.7 millimeters. Accurate firing range, and at least 800 meters, but the submarine is equipped with a silent grenade grenade launcher weighing 80 grams and has the ability to destroy the enemy as usual, and underwater ammunition.

Was submitted for review pistol shooting under water, with a cartridge-caliber 9x19 Griazev Shipunova. It differs capacity magazine (18 rounds) and low weight.

Striking features combat rifles DT and AL-12. These rifles, with a subsonic bullet, at a distance of 600 meters can penetrate the armor of an APC. Equipped with silencers, armor-piercing ammunition four-, modern fire control unit, which includes a ballistic computer automatically reformats the sight, depending on air temperature and atmospheric pressure, and the rangefinder. But, according to the manufacturer, this type of rifles purchased by the Ministry of Defence in the best case for another two years.

As noted by the IEE, just refusing to buy commercially Defense Firearms and associated means of combat is a factor that affects the stable operation of even the oldest and most famous defense companies. This problem has become one of the most pressing topics discussed at a meeting of scientific and technical council of the Military-Industrial Commission to the Government.

On the question raised by the meeting military, on orders unjustifiably underestimated the Ministry of Defense at the expense of close combat, that is one of the main factors affecting the stability of the companies involved in the production of this type of weaponry, the military could not answer. Defense workers also expressed their surprise at the refusal to buy modern weapons defense, emphasizing that such an approach to the orders of the military departments leads to a reduction of staff and is contrary to economic laws.

Underwater 12.7mm rifles able to penetrate APCs and silenced under barrel grenade launchers... well I noticed that latter bit myself...

two-media machine DT (working on land and under water) of 12.7 millimeters. Accurate firing range, and at least 800 meters, but the submarine is equipped with a silent grenade grenade launcher weighing 80 grams and has the ability to destroy the enemy as usual, and underwater ammunition.

So those weapons called ASh-12, one is called DT and can be used above and below water and can use an underbarrel suppressed grenade launcher. Accurate firing range of 800m! Presumably with the high velocity ammo.

Was submitted for review pistol shooting under water, with a cartridge-caliber 9x19 Griazev Shipunova. It differs capacity magazine (18 rounds) and low weight.

That would be the GSh-18 pistol that can be fired underwater presumably with the new 4.5 x 19mm underwater ammo.

Striking features combat rifles DT and AL-12. These rifles, with a subsonic bullet, at a distance of 600 meters can penetrate the armor of an APC. Equipped with silencers, armor-piercing ammunition four-, modern fire control unit, which includes a ballistic computer automatically reformats the sight, depending on air temperature and atmospheric pressure, and the rangefinder. But, according to the manufacturer, this type of rifles purchased by the Ministry of Defence in the best case for another two years.

So what we thought was the ASh-12 seems to be called AL-12 here and it and the DT, both in 12.7 x 55mm calibre can both fire an armour piercing subsonic bullet accurate and effective to 600m that can be used against vehicles. Can be used with silencers and scopes with LRF and ballistic computers.